Hammann v. 1-800 Ideas Inc

Filing 291

ORDER Denying 285 Memorandum Regarding Discovery Disclosures; Granting 283 Request for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for summary Judgment; Denying as moot 253 Motion for Pretrial Daubert Hearing; Denying without prejudice 254 Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying 258 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 9/17/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6

JEROLD ALAN HAMMANN,

7

2:08-cv-0886-LDG-GWF

Plaintiff,
ORDER

8

v.

9

800 IDEAS INC., et al.,

10

Defendants.

11
12

By order dated March 18, 2014 (#275), and during the Rule 701 hearing conducted on May

13

28, 2014, the court struck plaintiff Hammann’s expert report, ruled inadmissible the 2005

14

testimony of Hammann’s expert in a prior case, found Hammann to be unqualified as an expert in

15

the area of damages related to his claims, and struck damages exhibits. The court, however,

16

permitted Hammann to “present evidence that [he has] provided [damages] information through

17

discovery,” Transcript of May 28, 2014, Hearing at 15-16, and defendants to file papers related to

18

that issue.

19

Hammann’s arguments in the nature of a motion for reconsideration of the court’s

20

evidentiary rulings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 will be denied. A

21

Rule 59 motion is untimely and, as defendants point out, Hammann has not made an adequate

22

Rule 60(b) showing. Furthermore, as defendants argue, Hammann cannot rely on exhibits filed on

23

the electronic docket as satisfying defendants’ discovery requests, and even if he could, any

24

documents relying on hearsay and self-generated materials could only be offered by an expert.

25

Hammann has never timely identified himself as such an expert in discovery requests or pretrial

26

disclosures. Considering the record in this case, and Hammann’s personal knowledge and

1

experience, the court will also preclude him from testifying as either a lay witness or an expert as

2

to lost profit (or “impairment”) damages. Hammann has never started a company, and he

3

possessed no personal knowledge about operations, capital expenditures, or earnings and lost

4

profits, with regard to the company he claims he would have formed. Furthermore, such testimony

5

would not only be unreliable, but highly speculative and confusing to a jury. Bottom line,

6

Hammann has never identified the projections and information in accord with defendants’

7

discovery requests and, even if he had, they would not be of assistance to a jury. The court adopts

8

the specific points and authorities made by defendants in the following rulings:

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that Hammann’s memorandum regarding discovery
disclosures (#285) is DENIED.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that defendants’ request for leave to file a renewed
motion for summary judgment (#283) is GRANTED.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that defendant Parker’s motion for a pretrial Daubert
hearing (#253) is DENIED as moot.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (#254)
is DENIED without prejudice.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that Hammann’s memorandum in support of motion
for summary judgment (#258) is DENIED.

19
20

DATED this _____ day of September, 2014.

21
22

______________________________
Lloyd D. George
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
2